Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 21045
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: Tararex

I'm with you Mark.

And I'm with you!

Quote:

....The assumption that newer members are unable to understand the concept of "date stamps" on old threads is a bit odd to say the least....

....but I'm not surprised at all that they often can't. What surprises me is that many older members don't seem easily to be able to tell. Likewise, that many older members don't seem easily able to tell which post a post is replying to (since except when posts are default-ly labeled as replying to the OP, it is shown at the top of the post.)

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 21045
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: Old Man

....it's always been a puzzler to me. Some, such as yourself, believe that old threads should not be resurrected, and yet I've seen new OPs chewed out for raising subjects that have already been hashed and rehashed a "million times before".

And not to mention some threads which had a very short shelf life at the time. Why not revive them if there are new members or older ones with fresh input?

Hear hear!

The new posts in Pianist Corner have been a little slow lately (or maybe it's just my perception), so I was happy to re-read this thread with some input from someone who was unable to post before.

I think it's nice to point out to new people if they try to answer a specific question that was asked years ago. I guess that may be a candidate for a "zombie thread". But otherwise, what's the harm? I don't think people would decide not to respond to a thread with a recent creation date because they already responded to an old thread.

Sorry argerichfan (I also think she's terrific), but I'm still confused. The original post was Aug of 2008, then it jumped to July 2012. Why would some people be upset over 5 months when the earlier gap spanned almost four years? As an aside, I thought this was a pretty lively discussion. Thanks

Sort of on topic, someone said there aren't any modern day Liszts, and it's also been mentioned that pianists now have different focus and all. I disagree. Let's just look at Marc-Andre Hamelin. He learns bookshelves full of music, and records giant stacks of CDs. How long do you think it takes him to learn these pieces? My guess is he can play most of them perfectly or near perfectly on the first try.

And really, it's not just him. A lot of young rising stars these days have a crazy amount of repertoire. I've seen a list of the repertoire that some kid at Curtis learned in 1 year, and it averages to something like 30 minutes per week of new repertoire (all difficult stuff obviously), which they have to polish and perform in a very short timespan. The only way to learn that quickly is if you only need to play through a few times to have it completely down.

....The assumption that newer members are unable to understand the concept of "date stamps" on old threads is a bit odd to say the least....

....but I'm not surprised at all that they often can't. What surprises me is that many older members don't seem easily to be able to tell. Likewise, that many older members don't seem easily able to tell which post a post is replying to (since except when posts are default-ly labeled as replying to the OP, it is shown at the top of the post.)

***many older members don't seem easily able to tell***Combination of presbyopia and don't care a bit?

In my case if I've got 20 windows open on VPN's into 5 different states I consider it a success if I post a proper reply to the correct forum.

_________________________

Piano is hard work from beginning to forever. Accept this as truth or risk a quick exit with tail between legs.

Sorry argerichfan (I also think she's terrific), but I'm still confused. The original post was Aug of 2008, then it jumped to July 2012. Why would some people be upset over 5 months when the earlier gap spanned almost four years? As an aside, I thought this was a pretty lively discussion.

Well just goes to show that I have not thought this out properly. Sorry for that.

Upon thinking about it more, well I guess it should not bother me, and it is always fun to interact with new people here. Mark does have a point, and ultimately if an old thread is resurrected, well what harm in that? I stand corrected.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 21045
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: argerichfan

Originally Posted By: jdott

Sorry argerichfan (I also think she's terrific), but I'm still confused. The original post was Aug of 2008, then it jumped to July 2012. Why would some people be upset over 5 months when the earlier gap spanned almost four years? As an aside, I thought this was a pretty lively discussion.

Well just goes to show that I have not thought this out properly. Sorry for that....

I don't think you hadn't thought it out properly. I think he misunderstood it a bit. The people who are upset about the 5 month gap are upset over 4 year gaps too.

This is nice. I haven't read this thread before and was a good read, I'm glad it was "resurrected". To those who seem to be losing sleep over this fact, why not just shut up and not read the thread if you know it's old?

This is nice. I haven't read this thread before and was a good read, I'm glad it was "resurrected". To those who seem to be losing sleep over this fact, why not just shut up and not read the thread if you know it's old?

What makes you think anyone is losing sleep over it? And why, once a zombie thread is resurrected, should anyone "just shut up", any more than you have?

Anyway, please explain me how one is supposed to know a thread is old when looking down the subject list of threads. I would love to know.

For some of us, he did. I have an intense dislike of zombie threads, and I know there are many others who feel the same.

The very concept of a forum is dependent on the interaction of current users. That fact seems to be lost on a number of the current users.

If it were my forum, I'd be looking for some automated method of locking dormant threads. If someone was desperate to add on to some ancient stuff, they could simply start a new thread and give a link to the old one they wanted to reference in the first post. Or, if it was just some single posting that they wanted to respond to, they could just copy and paste whatever was relevant.

How exactly has the "interaction of current users" been impeded? Just today we've had the following people post to this thread:

All of the above are current users (1/18/2013 seems fairly current to me, anyway). The title of the thread is clearly visible. The only difference I see between this "zombie" thread and a "current" thread is that this thread contains comments that have an earlier time stamp.

So what is the source of your "intense dislike"? Other than these time stamps, and the names of people who may or may not still be posting, I'm not sure how how this thread differs from a current thread. The differences seem so superficial, I can't believe it's such an issue for you and the "many others who feel the same." I'm certainly no genius, but even I can handle time stamps.

The issue is apparently one of those "if you don't already understand it, there is no way to explain" things. At any rate, it has absolutely nothing to do with those who might have posted since the thread was resurrected.

And not to mention some threads which had a very short shelf life at the time. Why not revive them if there are new members or older ones with fresh input?

Hear hear!

The new posts in Pianist Corner have been a little slow lately (or maybe it's just my perception), so I was happy to re-read this thread with some input from someone who was unable to post before.

I think it's nice to point out to new people if they try to answer a specific question that was asked years ago. I guess that may be a candidate for a "zombie thread". But otherwise, what's the harm? I don't think people would decide not to respond to a thread with a recent creation date because they already responded to an old thread.

For me, the problem isn't about responding to old threads, it's about how it is done.

Here's just one part of why I don't like the way this one was done - I look down the list of subjects when I come to the forum, see a thread I hadn't noticed before, open it, and am immediately plunged into a conversation in which I cannot partake, because most of the people are no longer here. That's annoying.

Then, realizing that it's a zombie thread, I have to go through it, scanning the dates, trying to find the one that was the one that resurrected the thread.

All of that could be avoided if the person resurrecting the thread simply started a new thread, with the same subject if they want, saying they had something to add, and put a link to the old one in their post.

You know, the real topic of this thread actually is interesting - and if someone had not added to it I would probably never have noticed it.

Too bad there are so many posts debating the rights and wrongs of reviving an old post -- (as if there really are any, I mean...seriously folks?) --- that we have to now wade through to see if there is anything else interesting.

I think some folks really get too wound up about stuff that really isn't worth it - and to call someone out as being impolite, or to tell someone to shut up (different posters)... well, that's just not very friend is it?

_________________________ ABF Recitals 18-44Another thing you learn along the way is that the music will still be there when you are ready for it. There's no reason to rush. JimF